This post is being sent in two parts. [combined into one here.  BIG]
 
Amy <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>From: "Mary R. Shefferman" <[log in to unmask]>
>>He said that it is far better to chance a possible adverse reaction
>>than to have to live with the knowledge that you could have prevented
>>the illness.
 
>#Just keep in mind the possibility of long term damage from the vaccine
>too.  An immediate reaction to the vaccine may be the least of the
>problems.  That needs to be kept in mind when making the decision on
>vaccinating.  That may not be what people want to hear, but I believe
>that people should be aware of everything that could happen, not just
>what people want to hear (or only what people think you should hear),
>an informed decision is the best decision and maybe people should be
>made to think and research.  Let's be honest when we say things and
>give the whole truth, not part of it.  If someone wants to say annual
>vaccinations for ferrets are necessary because their is no studies in
>ferrets to say otherwise, make sure to mention that their is also no
>studies in ferrets that say they are necessary either.
 
I'll admit that I'd have to do some research on the potential for
long-term problems associated with vaccines (*but see below).  However,
that doesn't change the reasoning that if you can prevent a 100% fatal
illness, then it's worth whatever risk that is not 100% fatal.  If a
ferret dies at age 2 of distemper, but would have died at age 6 from an
alleged long-term problem from a vaccination, I'm all for risking the
long-term problem.  Feel free to disagree: This is my *opinion*.  I'm
not simply touting the company line about vaccines -- I have thought
about this and come to my own conclusion.  I'm not out to hoodwink the
public; I'm not being dishonest; I'm not trying to withhold information.
I didn't even say that annual vaccinations are *necessary* -- just why
I think people should vaccinate.  (If you're going to nitpick, then I'll
pick that one ;o) .) I think it's obvious that if the studies are done
only out to one year then those studies don't give the full picture on
how long the vaccine is effective.  I'm giving readers enough credit to
figure that out themselves.  However, I do think that one needs to go
by the facts that are available.  The proof for vaccine effectiveness
beyond one year simply doesn't exist, at least not to my personal
satisfaction -- everyone is welcome to their own conclusions.  That
doesn't mean vaccine effectiveness up to 3, 4, 10, or 50 years won't be
proven, just that it isn't proven right now.  I totally agree with you
that more information is needed -- studies in ferrets need to be done.
Energies should be put towards convincing vaccine manufacturers to do
these studies.
 
[Part 2.]
 
*<OPINION>There is a rising tide of skepticism of traditional medicine
these days.  This is at least partly a backlash from years of people
thinking that medicine is science and that doctors are people above
being human.  Medicine is an art (you've seen the sign: "Medical Arts
Building").  It is, wherever possible (or economically feasible),
supported by scientific studies (done by those darned fallible humans).
Doctors are human beings doing their best (or not) to use their knowledge
and their "finesse" (deductive skills?  intuition?) to help other human
beings.  People forget or are afraid to participate in their own medical
treatment -- and then, when it doesn't work, they say the doctor is a
quack.  People have, for years, been intimidated by doctors (this is
compounded by some/many doctors' attitudes), so they don't tell the
doctor that a particular treatment isn't working or what they think the
problem might be.  (Note: The doctor is not always right; but he's not
always wrong either.) This trend of mistrust has also included vaccine
and antibiotic usage (the later has data to back up great concern
regarding overuse).  While it's good to ask questions and to push for
research (participation in one's own health care is the key to good
health care), many lay people have a limited understanding of how biology
works, and thus, they may make assumptions that have no basis in fact or
that are not supported by the science that is available.  This mistrust
of traditional medicine is further fueled by supplement companies, which
profit from this fear of traditional medicine.  The current trend is to
believe that these companies are the "good guys," telling the truth, and
that doctors are nothing but money-grubbing bumbling idiots.  (Not that
there isn't merit to various nontraditional approaches to medicine,
certainly there is.) But the studies supplement companies use to support
their products must be examined with the same critical eye as studies in
traditional medicine.  If some traditional medicine studies don't stand
up to scrutiny (and certainly there are plenty that don't), many (or
most) of the nontraditional medicine studies also do not stand up to
scrutiny.  Bottom line?  We want to know the facts, but the facts don't
exist yet.  We want medicine to be science, but it isn't.  It may never
be.  (Full disclosure: My opinions are influenced by the fact that two of
my brothers, as well as one sister-in-law and several good friends, are
doctors.)
 
This mistrust/skepticism naturally spills into veterinary medicine, where
we have some of the same problems with people practicing this art --
they don't want to listen to their clients or the clients don't feel
comfortable challenging the vet's diagnosis or prescribed treatment.  (If
the vet is the problem, switch.  If you're the problem, learn to assert
yourself.  You know your ferret better than your vet does; your vet knows
ferret medicine better than you do -- you must work together for the best
results.) Vaccines have become a bone of contention, partly because many
people do not understand how they work and partly because watching your
little fur-baby have a vaccine reaction is a highly traumatic experience.
We want to find and believe something that says we never have to risk
that again.  Or, if we've never had a ferret have a reaction, but we've
heard horror stories, we want something to back up not vaccinating.  For
me, it always comes back to the acceptable risk: If the illness is 100%
fatal, but the vaccine is not, then I'll go with the vaccine.  </OPINION>
 
>I was finally able to find the JAVMA study Dr.Kemmerer had mentioned, it
>was from 1998, so it was not recent and the JAVMA archives only go back
>2 years unless you are a member.  I will be sending a post on that later
>on or in the next day or so,
 
I look forward to reading that.
 
--Mary & the Fuzzies
 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Mary R. Shefferman, Editor, Modern Ferret Magazine
Trixie, Koosh, & Gabby, The Modern Ferrets
Read my blog --
http://www.modernferretblog.com/mary
[Posted in FML issue 4112]